Court No. - 33
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2338 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ram Naresh Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Virendra Singh Chauhan,Anoop Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent nos.1, 2 and 3, Sri Gaurav Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no.4, and perused the record.
It appears that an FIR was lodged by General Manager of M/s Brijraj Motors Pvt. Ltd. at Police Station Karvi Kotwali Nagar, District Chitrakoot, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C., which was registered as Case Crime No.777 of 2018 against three persons, namely, Lalak Singh, Nitin Kumar Pandey and Gaurav Singh alleging that the Manager of the Firm Brijraj Motors, namely, Lalak Singh, in collusion with other employees of the Firm, had been illegally passing on delivery of new vehicles of the Firm by accepting direct payment in his own account thereby committing various offences.
It appears that petitioner's wife, namely, Chanda Devi, who is no more alive, had also taken delivery of one Scorpio vehicle by making payment directly to Lalak Singh and not to the Firm/dealer.
As the vehicle became case property, it appears, the investigating officer is looking to seize the vehicle. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court with a prayer that vehicle should not be seized.
The case of the petitioner is that his wife is a bona-fide purchaser for value; that she has paid adequate consideration for purchase of the vehicle, which is borne out from the bank statement of Lalak Singh; and that she has right/title over the vehicle of which she could not be deprived off.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that whether the wife of the petitioner is a bona-fide purchaser for value or not is a question of fact. Otherwise also, prima facie, the payment for purchase of new vehicle is ordinarily to be made either to the dealer dealing with those vehicles or to the Company that manufactures the vehicle. But, in this case, the payment has not been made to the registered owner of the vehicle and it has also not been made to the dealer or manufacturer of the vehicle. Therefore under the circumstances, the petitioner's wife cannot be said to be a bona-fide purchaser for value.
Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the view that appropriate course for the petitioner is either to approach the Civil Court and obtain injunction or to apply for release of the vehicle once it is seized and reported to the magistrate concerned. The issues raised by the petitioner would require investigation into questions of fact which may require leading of evidence therefore writ petition may not be the appropriate remedy at this stage.
In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose off this petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to appropriate legal remedy, as may be advised.
The petition stands disposed off. Order Date :- 29.1.2019 Ajeet